by 20%. productivity rose 6.6% in the second quarter. take a look at where the dow is trading. up 11 points. the s&p trading on the plus side as well. there it is there. up about a point. the nasdaq, positive. >> it's good to see we've moved into that positive territory. up 11. we will take it. a lot of people now focused on friday. we got the report out. people put some credibility in that, but the big number comes on friday with the government's report on jobs. i want to bring in bob. he's tracking all the action. watching a lot of the housing stocks. >> if you want to look at the source of anxiety, the markets are selling off housing stocks.
some of the big names in housing, just in the last two days, there are double-digit declines in the big names. >> these are all companies that have seen pretty significant run-ups. >> that's right. there are two. two points here. number one, these stocks are up 50% or more since the beginning of july. so evaluations are clearly getting way head of the -- the prices are getting ahead. the other concern that's out there is there is a double dip theory floating around in housing. that is that we're going to see mortgage applications drop a little bit as that tax credit expires. number two, we're going to see supply problems. supply is not going to be worked off as readily as people thought. this theory is weighing on the
housing sector. >> and on the market. that's still something that seems baded right now. we're going to get into that later, but briefly, i want to ask you about deutsch bank. >> they have a very successful change trade called the double long oil product, which gives you twice the exposure of oil, announced they were going to close the fund. the trading commission announced they were looking into the role of speculators might be playing in pushing commodity prices. deutsch bank for whatever reason decided that they were not going to keep this open because there might be position limits placed on them and other products for futures products and so they closed it. it's complicated, but mr. ginsler's going to be later
today. >> we're going to head uptown to brian shactman. >> good to see you. we're in positive territory. we've been flip-flopping. no overlying theme. internals are basically even. what's red to start, yahoo kicked into positive territory. oracle down. ebay down. we have some positive stories. dell up 1.7%. they made official they are going to sell networking gear. apple perhaps getting a pop from the news about vonage. take two interactive reported earnings, they lost less than expected and settled a class action lawsuit. they were up 3.9%. the medicines company received a
pa ton on a key drug. and novak down in 24 hour's time. giving back a lot of the gain they saw earlier in the week. mr. kudlow, back to you. >> job losses in the private sector are down to their lowest monthly level in a year. productivity shot up stronger than expected. up 6.5% in the second quarter. business investment as looks strong. where does that put us in regards to economic recovery? let's ask steve, if i have all those right. >> that was good. >> and bob bower, chief global economist at principal global investors. may i go to steve liesman first. profits up in the second quarter and business cap ex investment up.
what's that tell us about gdp? >> you know, based on that and other stuff, i would not be surprised to see a number between 3 and 4%, which is not bad. they're tracking 3.7, so i'm not making too bold of a comment. i want to make -- >> we're still going to cheer when you say it. >> this is how jobs come back. that profit thing. why? because it becomes profitable to hire people. nobody hires anybody out of the goodness of their heart. of course maybe i have one of those jobs. it's about the profit that you extract from an employee who is working and in recessions, employees tend to get much more profitable to hire back. >> on that point, steve, friday, we're looking at the new jobs number. we also saw challenger saying that announced layoffs down 21%. are we turning the corner, steve?
>> i don't think you're turning o tocorner on employment number. i think the payroll employment number on friday will be down another 275,000. >> and bob, weigh in on that. i'm the first guy to admit that the jobs numbers, the wage numbers, are still is chooels heel. >> i think expectations might be low because of the seasonal adjustment problems. the auto workers got laid off in june instead of july. it could be worse than the better expectations of 235. we would think anything under 30,000 would be a positive number. if you look at the household number or temporary workers number, when those lead by three months, we think they'll be more positive this time than the payroll number.
>> steve, you agree with that? >> i do. a good point, which is that every recovery since 1970 has been jobless. this is a, for reasons we do not understand, joblessness is a characteristic of the first year of recovery. >> it's a lagging indicator, isn't it? >> let's look at that. >> payrolls are coincidence. >> i understand that perspective, but logically. >> when you look at the productivity gains, i appreciate the jobs number was a bit disappointing this morning, but to steve liesman's point, when you put the package together, unit profits are growing. with inventories at rock bottom and manufacturing orders picking up, doesn't that set the stage for a better job story as we proceed?
>> if you had a real fundamental improvement in the dynamics, i think the answer would be yes. right now, we're dealing with a consumer trying to improve damage, what was depleted as a result of the downturns. again, that backdrop, what we're seeing in terms of the corporate sector is having a deteriorating effect on wage and salary production. if you had the normal environment, you would get that type of uplift. but what we're seeing now is a reduction in inventories based on automobiles. >> but bob, if reduction and inventory is at the bottom, you see yesterday as really strong. how in the world can you meet those orders with better production if you don't either start increasing hours worked, and b, rehiring. i don't understand.
>> you're right, larry. contrary to the worries, actually, you know, the inventory cycle is really set to boom. if you look at the difference between the new orders number and inventory number, the widest since 1975, this means that there's going to be a tremendous snap-back in inventory. you can't keep selling back when the cub order is bare. >> does it matter if those are from overseas? professor liesman, does it matter if those are refilled overseas? >> that's part of the leakage that's going to happen here. is that because of how we have set up our production situation here, which is not really here, half of it or more is there, you are going to see some of that come out of the improving
deficit number. it's going to back off the improvement. i was releasing the ism numbers which showed a strong export gain, but not strong import gain. it would be interesting to see if we can fill more of those inventories out of domestic production. a lot of stuff is changing below the surface. >> look at the headline on "the wall street journal." page one. above the fold. global economy gains steam. >> he's got it highlighted. >> steve, ism manufacturing is growing in places like france and germany. i never thought i'd see it. doesn't that amount to something good going on out there? >> i think the answer is again, if you look at these countries, they've done something similar to cash for clunkers. i think what we're dealing with is a question of temporary pick-up and demand relative to permanent pick-up and demand.
>> why would there be -- why wouldn't the economy eventually, if you remove the shock it's been through and that's principally the financial shock, why wouldn't the economy come back and grow at least partly the way it did before? >> i disagree that the shock is only financial. it reflected itself in a consumer balance sheet deterioration. that's going to take a long time to correct and that's the problem that's going to eat away at demand. you can talk about a rebound in inventories, all that's one quarter related. after that, where's the demand. it's where's the beef. >> we don't know that. >> this is a really good conversation. >> it's supply versus demand. i would argue that business is the heart of the business cycle. profits are the greatest stimulus possible. look at that number. 22.5% profits rise. >> companies don't hire workers
as a result. >> steve -- >> where do they come back to have the money to spend? >> also a debate on where the consumer is in getting it back together. i woner if they're further along. >> good point to end on. thanks for joining us. when we come back, markets in the green coming off of yesterday's jobs. barely there. are we falling into a correction here? is it time to reassess your risk level? we're going to discuss. plus, he called the crisis and nobody listened. he joins us live in an exclusive interview to discuss finding risks in the system. our math is simple. first in business worldwide. i'm racing cross country in this small sidecar, but i've still got room for the internet.
with my new netbook from at&t. with its built-in 3g network, it's fast and small, so it goes places other laptops can't. i'm bill kurtis, and i've got plenty of room for the internet. and the nation's fastest 3g network. gun it, mick. (announcer) sign up today and get a netbook for $199.99 after mail-in rebate. with built-in access to the nation's fastest 3g network. only from at&t.
great to see you. jim, last time you were on, i believe you did say we're going to get a correction in september. is this in fact what we're beginning to see? it is early. >> i think so. if you look at the dynamics of the global marketplace, china lead the decline in 2007. made a bigger move in our market. you can argue whether it's that important as an economy, but it's been a leading indicator for the global financial markets and we're seeing real corrections in chinese market. in the u.s., we've had a 50% move without much of a correction. historically, september's been a tough month, so i think the stage is set for a correction. >> so how does this affect, jim, the distribution of where you're investing your money? we talk about the classic 60-40 split. 60 being stocks.
should people be reversing it? >> they need to be careful. we don't try to overguess the market or lead the market. i think people need to be afrl about buying stocks. they need to be very protective of the stocks they're in and i don't think it would hurt to have a larger percentage of cash and i think corporate bonds are a good place to be. they can provide good returns. investors don't need to be overly aggressive in this environment. >> sheila bair told me last night she is worried about commercial real estate a possible second shoe to drop on banks. banks are key to the stock story. what's your take on this issue? >> well, i think there are a lot of small banks that are fanning. what you're hearing are the smaller banks. i think a bigger question as it relates to the "wall street journal" article, we climbed a
wall of worry. the american investor turned that into a stairway to heaven and now, we've become comfortably numb. i think a labor day sale might be in order. we can have a rollback and banks could play a role in that. >> tommy, you were suppose d to be our bull, but you say we're headed for a correction. what's going on if even the bulls think we're headed for a correction? >> i said perhaps a labor day sale. there's a difference between a labor day sale and connection. there's a general consensus in investment population that there could be a turn. we've had a 50% run-up from the bottom. we've become data weary, maybe figure fatigue. >> tommy, it may be a cliche. jim, you told me last week we're
going to 1050, now, a correction. why shouldn't i buy? you said you didn't like the market for the long run, but did for the short run. now, you have a 2% correction yesterday, which is nothing. it's a little gnat on the rear end of an animal and you're panicked about buying bonds. what's the story here? >> a clarification of the investment strategy. >> i made it clear in any notes, we're looking at the 10% or so correction between now and the middle of october or so, then one more leg up. then i think you start to see a double dip. >> let me take the 10% correction, then it goes up. before we get to the double -- this is a very complicated pie you're cooking here. i just want to know, if i believe there's a 10% correction and if it's gone up, shouldn't i buy on the dip? >> yeah. >> okay.
>> you buy a 10% correction, strength on weakness, in emerging markets, technology and a lot of the areas that led and they should correct more. >> okay. >> tommy the same thing, what do i do? buy the dip and where? >> i don't think that's the right question if you don't mind. i think -- if you look at the end of 2008, look back, then you've lost ten years worth of gains. by march, you've lost another 25%, i think the question is, is the stock market a legitimate place to invest. i say if you don't have a discipline, the answer is no. hope is dead, i think if you have a sell discipline -- >> we're being told we've got to wrap this segment. story of our lives here, guys. but it sounds to me that you were basically on the same page for the immediate future. that the month of september, to both of you, is going to be
somewhat rocky for investors and you're saying stay away? am i correct? >> it's too easy. it's a cliche. >> tommy? >> i think there could be a pullback. i think there's going to be some buying opportunities. a labor day sale perhaps. it goes strongly toward the end of this year. >> i think profits conquer all. jim, thank you for that clarification. i feel better now. coming up, is the fed's independence in jeopardy? >> poor guy. >> he's also one of the smartest guys out there. details on the new push to let congress in the back door of our central banks. but first, two deeply divided regulatory agencies come together in a meeting. they're trying to harmonize oversight practices. we'll discuss what it means for investing in commodities. um bill--
why is dick butkus here? i hired him to speak. a lot of fortune 500 companies use him. but-- i'm your only employee. we're gonna start using fedex to ship globally-- that means billions of potential customers. we're gonna be huge. good morning! you know business is a lot like football... i just don't understand... i'm sorry dick butkus. (announcer) we understand. you want to grow internationally. fedex express
on the day. >> melissa, speaking of oil, why is gold up today? >> i think you know the answer. >> no one believes in the dollar? >> i felt like that's where you were leading me with that. >> a wring l maybe. a historic meeting is underway in washington. they're holding a joint meeting responding from pressure to tighten regulation of the over the counter derivatives. dan, it doesn't seem like the idea of getting them together is going to help. >> this is a problem that's born over years. the energy markets and commodity markets have become huge investment vehicles they weren't three, four, five years ago. that's created problems with etfs. let's talk about ung.
>> they're going to regulate us right out of these markets. >> larry, i'm a believer. i think the government involved in this is a big mistake. there is a problem with what's going on with etfs in commodities and it's most clear in natural gas with ung which had, for example, it runs now like a closed-end fund because there's so much interest without going to the futures market. >> let's clarify. >> they have a certain number of shares. if you come in and buy the shares, they electronically buy natural gas futures. runs usually add up a 1, 2% premium. recently, it topped out at 19%. the actual futures. here's how it affects the
market. it makes it go down because every month, ung is forced to roll their entire positions in the month into the next month and they've controlled upwards of 30% of the spot commitment in natural gas. >> look, little mom and pop family, wants to play, put the money away. can't have an account at goldman sachs. why shouldn't we have cheap traded funds to play commodity? >> a 90% premium to the market. >> room for -- that's probably the end result of this, why it won't have much affect. what will happen, they'll come in and limit the number of shares. they were given permission to increase the number of shares and haven't done it yet because they were afraid the regulators were going to come in and limit
it. >> come on, you know -- what's gold doing? >> there's guys out there saying gold is going to $1300. is this a crammed down dollar buy gold? >> this is the most obvious trade and crowded. >> tell me why. >> they're printing a lot of money. when you're looking for an obvious inflation trade, you go to gold. the problem was, it became crowded. >> gold hasn't moved. it's very interesting because it's a sign about the fed. >> real quickly, the speculators in the oil market. >> i don't like that. >> people are saying as we talk about more regulation, do we have to do something. >> it's clearly making this
crazy problem in the natural gas market. there's nothing manipulatetive going on. >> commercial end users. not people betting because -- >> i could argue that. >> getting very bored with government regulation. >> always a pleasure. thank you. a quick programming note. get the inside account from gary ginsler with maria. >> larry, you could -- on government, right? >> yes, trish, thank you for that. coming up, the fed under fire from congress. lawmakers want to audit the central bank, but would this
kill the fed's independence? >> that trish, she's way ahead of me. our interview with paul wilmot. he's one of the few to correctly predict the financial crisis. find out how he thinks we can prevent the next one. reading about washington these days... i gotta ask, what's in it for me? i'm not looking for a bailout, just a good paying job. that's why i like this clean energy idea. now that works for our whole family. for the kids, a better environment. for my wife,
warned that the banks should not chop their mathematical models. he called this crisis. nobody responded. paul wilmot, great to see you. >> hi. >> so, you called it before. what are you calling now? >> well, i don't see how anything's changed, to be honest. we still have the same problem we did before. the herding behavior, nothing's changed. >> you don't think the banlgs have improved their balance sheets at all? >> it looks superficially like that. that's not what worries me. the shear size of the derivatives market. the latest thing being high frequency trading. the potential is still enormous. >> we always have the potential for bubbles and crashes. i guess i'm asking you with math
models, why do they break down? >> they were never perfect and one of the problems though was really the, a lot of people working derivatives thought they were better than they were. there is an inventive built in to the system that encourages people to believe in these things because it allows them to trade and trade bigger and bigger and bigger. one of the problems with a lot of risk management techniques is they can be used to hide risk when they should be alerted to risk. >> when you look at your mathematicals right now, what is it that indicates it's no different from last year? >> really the size of things. a lot of people in the drifter's market and the quantities behind this, they're just tweaking their models and they're not addressing the big issues. one classic example is the
feedback, the potential, the trading in the derivatives market can move the underlying markets and affect the world economy. >> but paul, just to try to narrow this down, is there an asset class that looks cheap to you from a pricing standpoint? >> an asset class? you're going to ask me about the gold price next. >> let's look at gold, energy, commodities. let's look at stocks, bonds, for example. look, the purpose of these models was to sort of somehow arbitrage stuff that looked expensive and cheap. i'm asking you, what looks rich and what looks cheap? >> i'm not going to play the game of giving you any stock tips. >> asset classes. just generally. >> really, the problem is that say something like high frequency trading. the link between prices and
value has been completely lost. as opposed to the stock market is to encourage people are too much money to invest in businesses that will grow and make the world a better place. but with high frequency trading, this is about making a quick buck. >> but what -- let me rephrase it. is there an asset class that looks cheap to you right now? >> right now? i -- no. i'm not going to go there. you're pushing me on this, but i'm not going to go there. >> i'm just trying to figure out. you don't like the models. i agree with you. economics and financial is a behavioral science. i totally agree with that. i've said that for as long as as my career, but your judgment, paul wilmot, your judgment, somebody gives you a billion
dollars. what looks cheap? what would you buy? >> let me answer a slightly different question. derivatives allow you to bet on or invest in sizes of moves. so, i would say that potential for large moves is still there. so rather than is the market going up or a particular asset classes going up or down, i would say that with options, you can exploit either of those. >> all right. >> but that's -- i don't understand how that applies to what larry was saying. >> there's so much potential now for this positive feedback. people trading in some instruments to cause that to move. >> are there particular instruments that look incredibly overvalued to you? >> well, as i say, the optionalty means that it's large move, you don't have to know
whether it's going up or down dramatically. with options, it allows you to say well, either way, i'm going to profit. so, options can exploit the kind of crisis that might come next. >> paul wilmot says we haven't gotten out of the woods yet. thanks so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> larry, you tried. with a conference underway in washington, we're joined now by one of the speakers who's just stepped out of this meeting. senior investment officer for global ek quities. let me ask you first of all, you were invited because you're a big investor in this area. how are you exposed to energy right now. how do you do it? >> the majority of our exposure is through energy company stocks. we do have some exposure through the derivative markets and futures contracts on energy as
well, but that's a small piece of our exposure. >> what do you think can be gained if anything by the sec and cftc coming together? >> the securities market and futures market both constitute a risk transfer. there are so many different places where the attributes of both have blended together. it has many attributes of leverage as well as securities markets. we see regulating the same activity. when they approach that from a different direction, it creates all kinds of problems. >> do you think either is better equipped? we lost the signal. >> you were on a role. >> i was so interested in what he had to say. he's back! do you think either -- quick, before we lose you. is one doing a better job do you think? >> we think they both do a
pretty good job. we think there's more that can be done by bringing together both enterprises. we think they need to partner up. the two are greating together than independently. >> they've both been under a lot of criticism. people have gotten into the energy markets, hedge funds, and drove the price up to 147. same time, sec, wow. they've received a ton of criticism on the back of the financial crisis. would it make more sense to appoint a new regulator? >> i can't begin to answer that. the function they provide are important and some entity needs to be there to deal with it. the kind of turf battles between should it be the sec -- >> but let me just ask you in closing. besides the issue of who do you trust, is there an instrument you don't want?
in other words, when you testified, is there something you just don't like and want them to wipe out or what? >> no, i don't think we're in favor of eliminating any instruments. that's trying to go back to a day that didn't exist. we think what's important is the proper transparency. that's what we're really all about. we believe in transparency, understand it. >> thank you so much for joining us. sorry we lost you for a second, but we got you back. thanks so much. as we continue to mark the anniversary of the 2008 financial crisis, congress is pushing for greater scrutiny of the fed and chairman bernanke. >> should the central bank be audited? a debate is straight ahead only on the call. welcome to the now network. right now five coworkers
are working from the road using a mifi-- a mobile hotspot that provides up to five shared wi-fi connections. two are downloading the final final revised final presentation. - one just got an email. - woman: what?! hmph. it's being revised again. the copilot is on mapquest. and tom is streaming meeting psych-up music - from meltedmetal.com. - ( heavy metal music playing ) that's happening now with the new mifi from sprint-- the mobile hotspot that fits in your pocket. sprint. the now network. deaf, hard-of-hearing, and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com.
the fed transparency is gaining steam. barney frank is backing the bill that would allow congress to audit the central banks. i guess audit more. but will this jeopardize its c independence?c let's bring in former president, andy, both are fantastic cnbc contributors. andy, what's going on here? if the fed has a mandate on inflation and won't stabilize the currency, i'm not sure i can get that excited. >> something's going to happen. i think it was a shock to congress last fall when bernanke and paulson met with congressional members and asked bernanke how much money could the fed bring to the table to bail out aig and bernanke said $800 million. that was essentially the balance
sheet of the fed. that woke up congress to how much power the fed has to do things. i think because the wielding of this power, there's all sorts of things that the fed did to stretch the limits of 133 and the federal reserve code, that makes congress very nervous. the fed is not an elected part of the three branches of government. it's almost a fourth branch with no oversight. >> bob, you're a dallas former fed president. what would you say they're looking for to decide the fed is no longer independent? >> i'm not sure what we mean by that. i do think that -- >> if we're saying we're going to audit the fed, for what? what is it that -- >> is it a policy audit? a policy interest rate audit. >> it does include that. it does include that and the
author of the bill, ron paul, who's a friend of mine, makes no bones about the fact that he would like to do away with the fed altogether. the gao is a very political organization. they generally try to find what the congressmen who sent them want to find. they used to say, let us look at your books. we won't look at your monetary policies. this would be disastrous. >> so it would be disastrous. andy bush, do you agree? i thought constitutionally, congress had a role in the value of the coinage of the united states. >> right. for them to look at what the fed makes a decision as far as interest rating goes, i agree. that should be left up to the board. however, i would say some oversight needs to happen as far as is 11 lending programs the fed has that are, as far as i'm concerned, unauthorized by the
congress and by the american people to lend to all sorts of different areas of the country's economy that they really don't have the legal authority to do. they really stretch 133 to get these programs on the books and eventually, the fed's going to lose money. >> can you tell me about the value of the currency? that's what you're supposed to do if you're a central bank. i'm trying to get this out of you. nothing. >> larry. larry. >> the u.s. treasury sets the value of the dollar as far as is government goes. you know that. >> read the constitution. it's in the constitution. i'm going to go and find the right section. >> thanks for joining us guys. >> regulate the value there of. and they delegated that to the federal reserve in 1913. >> wasn't that a great idea? >> trish? >> okay. "power lunch" is coming up. >> to break all that up there.
>> i know you did. >> the markets so-called fear index going up again. what is it saying about market expectations for the month of september? you should know if you're planning to invest this month. also, michelle's back with a hot debate today. there's a movement in europe to cap banker's bonuses and they want u.s. regulators to do the same. also, something i saw at the consumer electronics show this year. sony getting ready to introduce a 3-d television set. yes, ladies and gentlemen, working hard for all of our experien experience, our managing editor. >> thanks so much. a quick break, then, could the end be near for fannie mae and freddie mac? the details, we've got them straight ahead on "the call." abb
freddie mac would be replaced by privately owned mortgage credit guarantor entities. the mcgees buy mortgages from the banks, pays an insurance premium then sells them to investors with guarantees against the defaults. so the investors take the interest rate risk, but not a credit risk. the mcge takes the risk, but the new fund guarantees the payment on the mortgage securities should something bad happen. i spoke to the chief architect of the plachb this morning. >> the credit risk would be with the mcges it would be a strong regulator. in addition, those would manage their risk by using private
mortgage insurance and other tools. >> yes, it's great to talk about these potential mvges, but fannie mae and freddie mac have good assets, a whole lot of bad. >> we think they're playing a critical role today and will continue to play a critical role. the obama administration has decided to use them as a tool to help solve the problem and therefore, there will be a continuing amount of toxic assets and we think you need to put a fence around those. >> the mortgage bankers have shopped this around to treasury, the white house and federal reserve. so far, they say they are all listening. you know what it's going next. that is straight up capitol hill. >> thanks so much. up next, the stocks you need to watch. matt nesto has the list. with my new netbook from at&t. with its built-in 3g network, it's fast and small, so it goes places other laptops can't.
anything before takeoff mr. kurtis? prime rib, medium rare. i'm bill kurtis, and i've got plenty of room for the internet. and the nation's fastest 3g network. (announcer) sign up today and get a netbook for $199.99 after mail-in rebate. with built-in access to the nation's fastest 3g network. only from at&t. ♪ yes, you're lovely... ♪ what do you think? hey, why don't we use our points from chase sapphire and take a break? we can't. sure, we can.
the points don't expire... ♪ there is nothing for me... ♪ there's no travel restrictions... we could leave tomorrow. we can't use them for a vacation. you can use the points for just about anything. i know... ♪ the way you look tonight ♪ chase what matters. get your new chase sapphire card at chase.com/sapphire. i'm more active, i eat right, and i switched to new one a day women's active metabolism. a complete women's multivitamin plus more for metabolism support. and that's a change i feel good about. new from one a day. (announcer) we understand. you need to save money.
fleet is approaching an all-time high in terms of ageing. the credit suisse updating their board for the second time. they like packaging corp., ip and domtar. and textron, they make all kinds of industrial stuff. three industrial calls, all kind of future looking. i think that's in your sweet spot. back to you. >> very nice. sweet spot. industrial recovery. economic growth. i absolutely love it. thank you, matt. >> that is it for "the call." >> thanks for watching. >> and i'm sweet spot, larry kudlow. i'll see you tonight, 7:00 p.m. eastern because now, "power lunch" is up next. o8
yes, this is "power lunch." we're having a party this wednesday. here's what we're looking at. stocks are moving higher at the moment. at least for now. it's been an up and down day for the markets. among the best, exxon and chevron. the cost of protect your portfolio has gotten more expensive and we'll show you how to position your portfolio. >> one year later. it was a month that shook the world. the fed flashed interest rates to near zero. there's talk of giving more power to the central banks. but does the fed already have too many power? and they're switching bankers bonuses and penalties. should the u.s. follow suit?